Turing tests are a framework, not a set of specific questions. It assumes the interrogator is human, and the machine passes the test when its responses are indistinguishable from a human’s. What the questions are doesn’t matter, and it doesn’t matter if the answers are right or wrong. If the human interrogator cannot tell the difference between a human and a machine, it has passed the test.
That’s part of how Turing tests are done. Years ago a blind Turing test was done on chatbots and humans to see if people could tell the difference.
A human was classified as a bot because they happened to be a Shakespeare expert and as people had conversations and by chance Shakespeare came up, they thought no one could be that knowledgeable and classified the person as a bot.
Well, that’s sorta the point. Do machines think? They have knowledge and logic, but not insight or creativity. But do humans have those things? Or are we just really advanced pattern recognition machines? Turing tests demonstrated that it is really our imperfections that make us recognizable as humans. And if machines can be better at distinguishing between humans and machines, what is the virtue of “thinking”? Why is that better than “computing”?
Turing tests are a framework, not a set of specific questions. It assumes the interrogator is human, and the machine passes the test when its responses are indistinguishable from a human’s. What the questions are doesn’t matter, and it doesn’t matter if the answers are right or wrong. If the human interrogator cannot tell the difference between a human and a machine, it has passed the test.
How does it account for lots of humans being really dumb though?
That’s part of how Turing tests are done. Years ago a blind Turing test was done on chatbots and humans to see if people could tell the difference.
A human was classified as a bot because they happened to be a Shakespeare expert and as people had conversations and by chance Shakespeare came up, they thought no one could be that knowledgeable and classified the person as a bot.
It’s a highly subjective test method. Depending on the people in question, the accuracy could be all over the place.
Well, that’s sorta the point. Do machines think? They have knowledge and logic, but not insight or creativity. But do humans have those things? Or are we just really advanced pattern recognition machines? Turing tests demonstrated that it is really our imperfections that make us recognizable as humans. And if machines can be better at distinguishing between humans and machines, what is the virtue of “thinking”? Why is that better than “computing”?
A machine passed the Turing Test in the 60s. It’s not hard to do, since you can just specify limitations as much as you want.